Effectiveness of the use of clickers versus group discussion in learning by undergraduate medical students.

IF 1.9 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Journal of Family and Community Medicine Pub Date : 2023-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-24 DOI:10.4103/jfcm.jfcm_376_22
Jannatbi L Iti, Deepti M Kadeangadi
{"title":"Effectiveness of the use of clickers versus group discussion in learning by undergraduate medical students.","authors":"Jannatbi L Iti,&nbsp;Deepti M Kadeangadi","doi":"10.4103/jfcm.jfcm_376_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The evolution of Medical learning shows the incorporation of modern technology in teaching, learning, assessment, and medical practice. Clickers are easy to use, and provide instantaneous feedback on the student's comprehension of the information given. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of clickers in undergraduate medical students' learning by comparing clickers' scores with group discussion scores.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A cross-sectional comparative study with cross-over design was conducted for 6 months on 80 students of Phase III Part I MBBS. After an interactive lecture on diarrhea with a community medicine perspective, the students were divided into two groups, A and B, each consisting of 40 students. Group B students were further divided into five subgroups of eight students each. Group A students were assessed with clickers, Group B with group discussion and the cross-over done after 2 weeks. A questionnaire was used to assess the perceptions of the students on the use of clickers. Academic performance scores of the students were compared within the groups at different times (i.e. immediately after the interactive lecture and after 1<sup>st</sup> week and 2<sup>nd</sup> weeks) and between the two main groups. Data analysis was performed using SPSS. Mean and standard deviations were calculated for quantitative variables, whereas categorical data was presented as frequencies and proportions. Qualitative data was analyzed using content analysis technique.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean age of students was 20.4 (SD=0.6) years. The mean scores for the students using clickers were significantly higher than the mean scores for the students using group discussion. Most of the students (78.8%) either agreed or strongly agreed that the \"clickers were easy to use.\"</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study concluded that the academic performance of medical undergraduate students using clickers was better than the performance of the students using group discussions.</p>","PeriodicalId":46862,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family and Community Medicine","volume":"30 3","pages":"219-224"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/fc/5d/JFCM-30-219.PMC10479020.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Family and Community Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jfcm.jfcm_376_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The evolution of Medical learning shows the incorporation of modern technology in teaching, learning, assessment, and medical practice. Clickers are easy to use, and provide instantaneous feedback on the student's comprehension of the information given. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of clickers in undergraduate medical students' learning by comparing clickers' scores with group discussion scores.

Materials and methods: A cross-sectional comparative study with cross-over design was conducted for 6 months on 80 students of Phase III Part I MBBS. After an interactive lecture on diarrhea with a community medicine perspective, the students were divided into two groups, A and B, each consisting of 40 students. Group B students were further divided into five subgroups of eight students each. Group A students were assessed with clickers, Group B with group discussion and the cross-over done after 2 weeks. A questionnaire was used to assess the perceptions of the students on the use of clickers. Academic performance scores of the students were compared within the groups at different times (i.e. immediately after the interactive lecture and after 1st week and 2nd weeks) and between the two main groups. Data analysis was performed using SPSS. Mean and standard deviations were calculated for quantitative variables, whereas categorical data was presented as frequencies and proportions. Qualitative data was analyzed using content analysis technique.

Results: The mean age of students was 20.4 (SD=0.6) years. The mean scores for the students using clickers were significantly higher than the mean scores for the students using group discussion. Most of the students (78.8%) either agreed or strongly agreed that the "clickers were easy to use."

Conclusion: The study concluded that the academic performance of medical undergraduate students using clickers was better than the performance of the students using group discussions.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

医学本科生在学习中使用点击器与小组讨论的有效性。
背景:医学学习的演变表明现代技术在教学、学习、评估和医学实践中的结合。点击器很容易使用,可以对学生对所提供信息的理解提供即时反馈。本研究的目的是通过比较点击者的得分和小组讨论的得分来评估点击者在医学本科生学习中的有效性。材料和方法:采用交叉设计对80名MBBS第三期第一部分的学生进行了为期6个月的横断面比较研究。从社区医学的角度进行腹泻互动讲座后,学生被分为a和B两组,每组40名学生。B组的学生被进一步分为五个小组,每组八名学生。A组用点击器进行评估,B组用小组讨论进行评估,两周后进行交叉。使用问卷调查来评估学生对点击器使用的看法。在小组内不同时间(即互动讲座后以及第一周和第二周后)以及两个主要小组之间比较学生的学习成绩得分。数据分析采用SPSS软件进行。计算定量变量的平均值和标准差,而分类数据则以频率和比例表示。定性数据采用内容分析技术进行分析。结果:学生的平均年龄为20.4岁(SD=0.6)。使用点击器的学生的平均得分显著高于使用小组讨论的学生的得分。大多数学生(78.8%)同意或强烈同意“点击器易于使用”。结论:研究得出结论,医学本科生使用点击器的学习成绩优于小组讨论的学生。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Family and Community Medicine
Journal of Family and Community Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
3.70%
发文量
20
审稿时长
37 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信